In the last part of this series, “Is Red Pill Biblical?”, we discussed the Red Pill concept of the Female Imperative and the Red Pill concept of hypergamy in women. We showed that aspect of the Feminine Imperative which prompts women to seek the best quality man with which to mate and also to have a father for that offspring providing and giving security to a woman and her offspring is by the design of God. However just as man’s nature has been corrupted, so too woman’s nature as originally designed by God has been corrupted. Hypergamy is a corruption of the feminine nature God designed. This corruption causes women to lack true contentment with the men they are with. Hypergamy is always looking for the next best guy.
We talked about men doing careful vetting and looking for women who will recognize their own sinful natures, including their sinful hypergamous natures and are willing to fight it. True faith, both on the part of a man and the woman he marries, gives a couple a better fighting chance of having a truly lifelong marriage together.
As part of our discussion of the Feminine Imperative, I discussed the Alpha Male Mindset. I wanted to come back in this fifth part of this series on Red Pill to zero on this on concept to determine if any part of it is Biblical.
As a reminder of what we spoke about concerning the Alpha Male Mindset I want to restate what Tomassi said in his article “Mental Point of Origin” :
“Personally, I was at my most Alpha when I didn’t realize I was. That’s not Zen, it’s just doing what came natural for me at a point in my life when I had next to nothing materially, only a marginal amount of social proof, but a strong desire to enjoy women for the sake of just enjoying them in spite of it.
I’ve mentioned before, the most memorable sex I’ve had has been when I was flat broke (mostly). It didn’t matter that I lived in a 2 room studio in North Hollywood or had beer and mac & cheese in the fridge – I got laid and I had women come to me for it…
It didn’t take my doing anything for a woman to get laid or hold her interest. All I did was make myself my mental point of origin. It’s when I started putting women as a goal, making them into more than just a source of enjoyment, that I transferred that mental point of origin to her and I became the necessitous one.
A lot of guys will call that being ‘needy’, and I suppose it is, but it’s a neediness that results from putting a woman (or another person) as your first thought – your mental point of origin…
Are you your mental point of origin?
Is your first inclination to consider how something in your relationships will affect you or your girlfriend/wife/family/boss?
When men fall into relationships with authoritarian, feminine-primary women, their first thought about any particulars of their actions is how his woman will respond to it, not his own involvement or his motivations for it. Are you a peacekeeper?
Do you worry that putting yourself as your own first priority will turn a woman off or do you think it will engage her more fully?”
So, did you catch what Tomassi said in the beginning of these statements above? The time in his life when he got the most sex was when he made himself and his own desires his mental point of origin and he did not care what the women around him thought of his life choices. They could come or go and it did not matter to him. And he had women throwing themselves at him when had this mindset.
Is there some truth to this? Are women attracted to men who do not live to please them but rather to please themselves? Yes, many women are attracted to this. Others are not. Will a man probably “get laid” more if he has this mindset of not needing to please women and living only for what pleases him? Most likely yes.
And if the entire point of our male existence was to have sex with as many women as possible, i.e. the Red Pill male imperative, then Tomassi would have a point. But from a Christian and Biblical perspective, getting more sex is not the only reason for our existence as men. God created us for a greater purpose than this which we will discuss shortly.
But before we get to that purpose, we first need to discuss whether a woman should be a man’s mental point of origin or not.
Does the Bible Agree with Red Pill That A Woman Should Not Be A Man’s Mental Point of Origin?
Man’s first sin was in listening to his wife, seeking to please her over pleasing God or in Red Pill vernacular, making his wife his mental point of origin. In the book of Genesis, we read the following:
“And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life”
Genesis 3:17 (KJV)
Job illustrates for us what Adam should have done when instead of listening to his wife’s sinful advice, he rebukes her instead:
“9 Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die. 10 But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.”
Job 2:9-10 (KJV)
A man who lives his life to please his wife is by very definition controlled by his wife. And God says the man who pleases him will never allow himself to be controlled by a woman:
“And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her.”
Ecclesiastes 7:26 (KJV)
So yes, the Bible would agree 100% with Red Pill that men should never make women their mental point of origin.
Does the Bible Agree with Red Pill that Men Should Make Themselves Their Mental Point of Origin?
The Bible teaches us in 2 Corinthians 5:15 “that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again”. In other words, as Christians, we should not live for ourselves, but rather we should live for Christ.
Christ, not you, should be your mental point of origin.
The Bible tells us in 2 Corinthians 10:5 that we should be “Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ”.
With every decision we as men make, we should not be asking whether this would please the woman we are with, but rather we should be asking “Would this decision be pleasing to Christ?”
Christ Made His Mission His Mental Point of Origin and So Should We as Men
But it is one thing to say Christ should be our mental point of origin and an entirely different thing to understand what that actually means. Many Christian teachers today teach that living for Christ means living to please others. They teach that Christians should never seek what pleases themselves, but only do what pleases others.
They appeal to Biblical passages like the one below to bolster their position:
“25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. 26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; 27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant”
Matthew 20:25-27 (KJV)
The sad reality is that a great number of Christian teachers have used the statement above from Jesus Christ to cancel out what the rest of the Scriptures say and to create an entire generation of Christian beta men who live to please women and they think by doing so they are pleasing Christ. Such a concept is a complete bastardization of the Biblical concept of servant leadership that Christ was trying to teach us.
The passage below gives us a greater understanding of what Christ was saying in the Gospels:
“3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. 4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth”
Philippians 2:3-10 (KJV)
Now let’s zoom in on two key statements in the passage above. The first one is found in verse 4:
“Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.”
The statement above gives us the clearest Biblical definition of selfishness in the Bible. Selfishness is not when a man seeks to meet his own needs or desires, but rather it is when a man ONLY seeks to meet his own needs or desires and never considers the needs and desires of those around him.
The next key statement we are going to look at from the passage above is found in verse 8:
“And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”
The focus of Christ’s life was the mission he came into the world to complete. His mission was to die on the cross for the sins of mankind. In John 3:17 we read “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved” and in 2 Corinthians 5:19 we read “that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them”.
Christ knew why he was born into this world. His mission was the continuous focal point of his life while he walked this earth. We as Christian men need to follow his example by making our mission the focal point of our lives. In other words, making our mission from God our mental point of origin is making Christ our mental point of origin.
What is Our Mission from God as Men?
The Bible says in 1 Corinthians 11:7 “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man”. Our mission in life as men is to image God and thereby bring him glory. Imaging God means us as men living out his attributes.
Man images God in is daily work by being the best in his business that he can be. In John 5:17 we read “But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work” and in Psalm 104:23 the Bible states “Man goeth forth unto his work and to his labour until the evening”.
The Bible encourages men to be diligent in their business and to make it the best it can be in Proverbs 22:29 when it states “Seest thou a man diligent in his business? he shall stand before kings; he shall not stand before mean men”. And in Proverbs 12:24 the Bible states “The hand of the diligent shall bear rule: but the slothful shall be under tribute”.
But a man cannot fully image God and thereby fulfill his purpose for being created without also being a husband and father. In Ephesians 5:23 we read “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body” and in Ephesians 5:25-26 the Bible states “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word”.
Men image God in the lives of their wives by leading them and washing them with the Word of God. They also image God in the lives of their wives by providing for and protecting their wives as they would their own bodies as Ephesians 5:29 states.
Men image God in the lives of their children by providing for them (Matthew 7:9-11) as well as teaching and discipling them (Hebrews 12:6-10).
Where Does a Man’s Desire for Sex Fit into His Life’s Mission?
As we have previously shown in this series, Red Pill teaches that the male imperative, or man’s mission, is to sow his seed as often as possible with as many women as possible. In other words, have sex as often as possible. So, the question is, does having sex play any part in the mission God has given to us as men? The answer is yes.
While sex certainly is not the entirety of our mission from God, it does play a vital role in that mission. In Genesis 1:28 it is implied that God wanted men to have sex as part of his command to “Be fruitful, and multiply”.
But the sad truth is many church theologians over the last two thousand years have taught a falsehood regarding sexual relations between a man and woman that its primary purpose is for the continuation of the human species. In more recent years Red Pill has essentially taken the same position from a naturalistic and evolutionary perspective.
The Bible however, stands apart from both Red Pill and historic church teachings regarding the primary purpose of sex. The Bible does not say the primary purpose which God made sex was reproduction neither does it tell men only to have sex with their wives to have children.
But rather in Proverbs 5:19 it tells a man to let his wife’s “breasts satisfy” him “at all times” and to be “ravished” or “intoxicated” with her. God has created a sexual thirst in man for woman that is so strong that he compares it to the human need for water in Proverbs 5:15 and he calls a man’s wife his “well” from which he encouraged to liberally drink. In Romans 1:27 sex is called “the natural use of the woman”. And while the Scriptures command men not to deny their wives sexually, the Bible never refers to sex as “the natural use of the man”.
All of this Biblical language encouraging men to satisfy themselves with and use their wife’s body for their sexual pleasure makes sense in light of 1 Corinthians 11:9 which states “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man”.
According to the Bible, everything about a woman, both psychologically and physiologically, was created for man. That means a woman’s psychological desire for sex, her breasts, her nipples, her vagina, her clitoris, all her erogenous zones and her ability to experience sexual pleasure from all these areas was created for man. Does that mean we are saying God only created woman for man’s sexual pleasure or that he only created sex for sexual pleasure? Of course not. But it was a primary reason and now we will explain why.
Why would God create make sex so extremely pleasurable and make man’s desire for it so strong? The reason is so that man could image God’s desire for the beauty of his people and his desire to take pleasure in his people. In what is widely considered a prophecy of Christ and his Church Psalms 45:11 states “So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him”. And in Psalm 149:4 we read “For the Lord taketh pleasure in his people: he will beautify the meek with salvation”.
When we remember that man’s primary purpose is to image God and we see that God as a husband to his bride desires her beauty and desires to take pleasure in her we now understand why God designed man designed man to receive sexual pleasure from the beauty and body of a woman. This is why we can rightly say that seeking out sexual relations with a woman is part of God’s mission for man.
Conclusion
Red Pill is absolutely right that a woman should never be a man’s mental point of origin. But Red Pill is absolutely wrong that a man should make himself his mental point of origin. Instead as Christian men we must make Christ our mental point of origin. What would Christ have us do in a given situation? What would Christ have us do with our lives? These are questions we should be asking ourselves on a daily basis.
Making Christ our mental point of origin is synonymous with making the mission God has given us as men our mental point of origin. And the mission of man, the purpose for which he was created, is to image God with his life.
Unless a man has the gift of celibacy so that he “may attend upon the Lord without distraction” (1 Corinthians 7:35) then a man is called to image God in his life not only by working and making his mark on the world but also in being a husband and a father. Man’s strong sexual desire for woman images God’s desire for the beauty of his people and to take pleasure in his people.
When a man applies this truth to both his daily decisions and long-term decisions, he will inevitably at times hurt the feelings of or disappoint those around him whether it be his parents, his church friends, his girlfriend, his work friends, his boss at work and sometimes even his wife and children. Ultimately though a Christian man whose life is centered on his mission from God is only concerned with not disappointing one person and that person is God.
And one final note on selfishness. Earlier we showed that the Bible defines selfishness in Philippians 2:4 when it states “Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others”. A man needs to remember it is NOT selfish of him to look his own needs or even desires, but rather it is selfish of him to look to his own needs and desire and never consider the needs and desires around him.
It is not selfish for a man to devote the majority of his waking life to his career and or ministry. God created men to make their mark on the world in this way. It is also not selfish for a man to desire sexual relations with his wife more often than she desires sexual relations with him and it is not selfish of him to have sexual relations with his wife when she is not in the mood. When a man has sex with his wife when he so desires, he is fulfilling God’s command for him to satisfy himself “at all times” with his wife’s body.
Now if his wife has a legitimate medical condition a man should protect his wife’s body as he would his own and therefore forgo relations during that time. A prime example would be just after a woman has a had a child or after she has had surgery. But whether it be in the arena of his career, when to have sexual relations, financial decisions or discipline of the children if a man centers these decisions around his wife’s feelings, he is failing the mission that God has given him.
Does this mean it is wrong to ever consider a woman’s feelings? Of course not. As long as man is not centering his life on what the reaction his wife might have and always trying to please her a man can find ways to be kind, compassionate and generous with his wife and at the same time not compromise his primary mission to image God with his life.
The next topic we will cover in this series is “Is The Red Pill Concept of Frame Biblical?”
Biblical Gender Roles 
Wow, that was fantastic. Only one comment- A man’s wife is a mirror to God. The way he treats his wife should mirror his relationship with God. I’ve written on this before so it’s a fascinating subject! Thanks for posting!
@ Noah.
” The way he treats his wife should mirror his relationship with God”
That statement is convoluted, destructive and plain incorrect. A more biblically correct statement might be, a husband should treat his wife like a mirror of how Christ treats the church. However, a wife should treat her husband like a mirror of the church’s relationship with Christ.
Nowhere in scripture is a husband commended for calling his wife “lord”, but in 1 Peter, Sarah is held as an example to be followed for calling her husband “lord”. Husbands are not commanded to submit to their wives like to Christ, yet wives are commanded to submit to their husbands as unto Christ.
Noah – you might need to expand on that mirror analogy. We may agree or disagree depending on how you explain it. The husband wife relationship indeed is meant to image or “mirror” the relationship between God and his people or Christ and his Church – Ephesians 5 makes that crystal clear.
But saying “A man’s wife is a mirror to God” could be taken very wrongly. It seems to imply that she represents God in his life and Ephesians 5 says the very opposite, that the husband represents God in the life of his wife. There actually are some Christian teachers who in error teach that the wife is the Holy Spirit of the family and nowhere does the Bible support such a notion. Again I could be misunderstanding what you saying and you want to elaborate that would be great.
Sorry, that’s not what I was implying (also my name is Elisha, my computer auto-filled my brother’s name for some reason). What I meant is this- If a husband is treating his wife badly, how on earth can he be expected to be called a Christian. Thus, no true Christian should treat his wife badly, period and end of story. You honor your wife like you honor the church, and thus your relationship with your wife will be similar to your relationship with God, in the sense of love and respect.
@Elisha You are still missing the teachings of scripture. A man honors his wife as the weaker vessel, he loves her like Christ loves the church. Of note, Christ disciplines His church, because He loves her. Some might even call that discipline treating the church badly, because “no discipline is pleasant. Thus it is too ambiguous to say “no true Christian treats his wife badly”. That statement invites subjectivity while invoking the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.
But let’s now In the light of scripture examine your statement }…thus your relationship with your wife will be similar to your relationship with God, in the sense of love and respect. The prophet Hosea leaps to mind, his relationship with God was nothing like his relationship with Gomer, but am willing to set his example aside to focus on the antitype.
The church is disobedient and contentious toward her Lord. Is that the fault of Christ? Is Christ’s love insufficient to lead his betrothed. Is perhaps the church the party creating disunity, dishonor and lacking in love. Of course it is blasphemy to level a charge against Christ for His treatment of the church including His discipline. Paul also calls it a blasphemy against the Word when a wife doesn’t obey her husband.
In human relationships there are two parties each acting and reacting. When one party, the wife, is taught her disobedience is simply asserting her independence and individuality or that her feelings are the metric to determine the depth of her husband’s love, or that any unpleasant dealings are abuse punishable by threats of divorce or that sex is a carrot to get favors or a stick to punish actions that gain her disapproval, then that party is being stirred up to engage in war against her husband for control.
The church, ever wanting to see itself as protecting the weaker vessel and eager to receive the accolades of the women is swift to condemn a husband if he dares to confront his wife’s disobedient blasphemy or her contempt for God’s household order. professing to defend the family the church through its teachings is leading the mutiny within the family. Men, not women, are routinely singled out as the real problem in the relationship to be fixed. Of course most pastors are happy to unseat a husband so that the pastor can present himself as the white-knight. Husband’s are condemned for both attempting to make corrections and for failing to lead. They are taught to abandon their responsibilities of headship to become a servant to their wife. Contrary to the church, the Bible places emphasis on the wife’s obedience and honor of her husband. While a husband is commanded to love his wife and honor her as the weaker vessel, he is nowhere condemned for being unskilled at making her happy. He is taught it is better to sleep on the roof than with a contentious wife.
The point is that a man can have a miserable marriage and concomitantly be walking with Christ in humility and obedience. (After all the relationship of the church to Christ is one that requires the unpleasantness of discipline.) The pious man in an unpleasant marriage scenario is made the more common by blaming him for a difficult relationship where his wife is stirred up to disobedience and doubt cast upon his relationship with Christ. His union with Christ will not transfer with his union with his wife if she is resisting the union. It does take two dancers to pull off the tango. As Christ is the head of the church so the husband is the head of the wife. Two heads in the marriage are not better than one. Unlike Christ, the husband does not have the ability to work within her to will and to do. She must be willing submit to Christ by submission to her husband. She must be resisting disunion by eschewing independence, finding her identity more in unity and less in individuality. If she will not receive teaching, correction, admonishing from her husband then she is resisting the means the Holy Spirt has instituted for her sanctification.
Finally circling back to Rollo, men love differently than women. To judge a man on his wife’s love or feeling of love to judge an apple by the color of the orange peel. To judge a man’s walk with God by his walk with his wife is fallacious. If he is walking with God and she is not walking with him, should it not be her walk we question not his?
So what you’re saying is that the wife is a meek woman who can’t protest if she’s being abused and isn’t allowed to speak her mind. Totally not 1800’s
Alright, I am neither married nor interested, but let’s dive in here. What really disturbs me is your misinterpretation of Scripture. Scripture is a tool, yes, but not one to be wielded lightly, and you misinterpret things far too much.
Your first comment about the prophet Hosea and Gomer- completely invalid because Hosea pursued Gomer, as called by God, in a similar way to the way he pursues God. His relationship with Gomer was similar to that of his and God- a natural leader and the weaker vessel.
In the verse “love your wives like Christ loves the Church”, you become too focused on the meaning of “love the church” and less of the meaning of the entire verse. Paul simply meant to love your wives unconditionally, in the same way that Christ loves the church. In taking it to the weaknesses of the church, you misread scripture and take away from the true meaning of the text.
Again, you are too caught up on disobedience. The verse “wives, submit to your husbands” does NOT mean that wives are to listen to husbands on everything. What if the husband ordered the wife to allow him to abuse her? Better yet, what if the husband was ordering her to SIN? No wife would or should tolerate that. Furthermore, if a husband excises his authority too much, he will find his relationship with his wife falling apart. The husband is not the Lord over the wife, there is only one Lord in that relationship and He died for us.
Your next paragraph is completely true and I will not argue that.
I only have one more thing to say: you correctly compare a husband’s authority to Christ’s, saying that Christ is the ultimate authority and only He can work in a wife’s heart, through the husband. However, the husband is NOT Christ, and the wife is NOT the Church. They are mirrors, but not the real thing. The husband is a human being that can and WILL make mistakes in marriage, and if the wife corrects him or gently reprooves him of this, that is a completely needed practice. Even Peter said it correctly when he said “live according to UNDERSTANDING”. The husband has to search his own heart before he goes after the woman’s own sin. Otherwise, expect to have an unsucesfull marriage.
I’d be interested to here more about what you have to say on this topic.
@Elisha.
My reply will need to be in several parts, because there is much to respond to. Tonight I only have enough time for a brief reply and chances are good tomorrow I will be in a location without access to the internet, so the totality of my responses may need to be spread over a few days.
” So what you’re saying is that the wife is a meek woman who can’t protest if she’s being abused and isn’t allowed to speak her mind. Totally not 1800’s
The calendar makes no difference if we are indeed discussing the ethics of the canon of scripture. “ “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.” Isaiah 40:8
As to being meek, 1 Peter 3:4 states ”[wives) … “But let it be the hidden person of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.” 1 Peter 3:4 So that’s a definite “YES” on meek.
As to speaking her mind, in the very same chapter speaking to wives Peter states “While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.”
1 Peter 3:2 . So yes, a wife can speak her mind, but her words and tone must be respectful and pure.
The charge of abuse needs a biblical definition. I am not aware of any passage of scripture that addresses the issue. None where it is clearly laid down or a result of a good and necessary consequence of deduction from scripture. The anti-family feminists created a nebulous standard for what constitutes abuse in their Duluth definitions, but those are hostile to the Word of God and the advancement of His kingdom. Without a definition we are left with the very dangerous “what seems right in our own eyes” standard. For such things God has sent judgments to the land. So without a biblical definition, I must treat your hypothetical scenario as simply a cavil and dismiss it as gibberish from a humanist ethic and a non-biblical perspective.
BTW-your attempt at shaming me is futile, I am not ashamed of the Word of God no matter how out of date it may seem to those in rebellion. I would only be ashamed if I was denying the scripture or the rule of Christ over all of life.
To be continued….
You claim to not be ashamed of the Word of God and yet use it only for your own reasoning, not for what it is meant for. Sir, I am a Christian too, and I have been raised with the remembrance that the Word of God has one meaning and one meaning only. To use it like a Prosperity Gospel preacher, in using it incorrectly, is wrong. You have attempted to turn it back on me in claiming that I shame you, but I have done no such thing. I have simply made points which you have dismissed, having no return argument of your own.
As to your first comments: The calendar does matter. Do you allow your children to speak at the dinner table? This wasn’t allowed 200 years ago. Do you move in church? This wasn’t allowed either. I’m sorry, but your verse is invalid in that context.
Also, I will repeat the points you need to address:
In the verse “love your wives like Christ loves the Church”, you become too focused on the meaning of “love the church” and less of the meaning of the entire verse. Paul simply meant to love your wives unconditionally, in the same way that Christ loves the church. In taking it to the weaknesses of the church, you misread scripture and take away from the true meaning of the text.
Again, you are too caught up on disobedience. The verse “wives, submit to your husbands” does NOT mean that wives are to listen to husbands on everything. What if the husband ordered the wife to allow him to abuse her? Better yet, what if the husband was ordering her to SIN? No wife would or should tolerate that. Furthermore, if a husband excises his authority too much, he will find his relationship with his wife falling apart. The husband is not the Lord over the wife, there is only one Lord in that relationship and He died for us.
Your next paragraph is completely true and I will not argue that.
I only have one more thing to say: you correctly compare a husband’s authority to Christ’s, saying that Christ is the ultimate authority and only He can work in a wife’s heart, through the husband. However, the husband is NOT Christ, and the wife is NOT the Church. They are mirrors, but not the real thing. The husband is a human being that can and WILL make mistakes in marriage, and if the wife corrects him or gently reprooves him of this, that is a completely needed practice. Even Peter said it correctly when he said “live according to UNDERSTANDING”. The husband has to search his own heart before he goes after the woman’s own sin. Otherwise, expect to have an unsucesfull marriage.
I’d be interested to here more about what you have to say on this topic.
Elisha,
If only you spent half as much time following the Word as you do trying to lawyer your way out of it. You sound like a child who is trying to find any excuse under the sun not to eat his vegetables or make his bed. Give me a concrete definition of this “abuse” you fear Christian husbands across the land are going to subject their wives to if they were returned their rightful place of headship. As if God is not going to strike down the husband who has sin in his heart and purposefully leads the flock he is responsible for astray. Or that God thought so lowly of these poor, helpless women that they were denied guidance in the Bible. I guess you think God’s grace and wisdom are not enough: we need people like you to police all the terrible, “abusive” husbands out there. Real or imagined, what’s the difference? Better get to it; your throne in Heaven awaits, amirite?
God’s word is clear. He is not an egalitarian. It is you that must fit yourself to the Word, not the other way around. And whatever punishment God may have in store for wayward husbands is none of your business. Stop trying to find every exception in the book like a Pharisee, woman or child. And if that offended you, good. Maybe there’s a speck of genuine manhood in you after all.
Elisha,
I agree with Jonadab that there is so many wrong statements in what you have said that I will need to take these in bite sized pieces. I do believe this will be a good learning opportunity for you if you are willing to listen, but even if you are set in your errant view on the love of a husband toward his wife and the relationship of a husband toward his wife from a Biblical perspective – I am posting these responses for those who are willing to listen to what the Bible has to say on these issues of life verses what modern western culture says.
In regard to the following statement you made:
You are wrong that the “entire verse” (Ephesians 5:25) is only talking about husbands loving their wives “unconditionally”. As Christians we are in general called to agape love (that is the Greek word used in this verse) toward others around us whether it be our wives, children, neighbors or fellow church members. The love spoken of hear goes beyond just unconditional love we are expected to have toward others, it is a love which is to emulate Christ’s love for his church. Notice the definition of that love below:
We are to unconditionally love our wives, not as we unconditionally love our children, neighbors or fellow church members, but rather we are to love our wives AS Christ loves his church. That “AS” is critically important to properly understanding the way a husband is to love his wife. He loves her by washing her spiritual and wrinkles with the Word of God. Regarding how he loves his churches, Christ says the following:
In addition to loving our wives as Christ loves the Church, we are to love our wives as our own bodies as the same passage tells us:
The Greek word behind the english word “nourisheth” has the idea of providing for physical needs and the Greek word behind “cherisheth” has to do with protection. So husbands are to love their wives as their own bodies and provide for the physical needs of their wives and protect their wives as they do their own bodies.
This kind of love of a husband toward his wife goes so much further than mere unconditional love. And it is a love that has a purpose that you are missing brother. It is a love that is to mirror the love of God toward his people. God’s love toward his people is a compassionate love, a merciful love, a gracious love. But it is also a teaching love, a correcting love, a rebuking love, a providing love and protecting love. This way that a husband is to love is wife is not reflected in any other human relationship nor should it be compared to one.
More coming on other statements you made.
Elisha, I have a moment to continue to add to my comments.
You wrote “The verse “wives, submit to your husbands” does NOT mean that wives are to listen to husbands on everything. What if the husband ordered the wife to allow him to abuse her? Better yet, what if the husband was ordering her to SIN? .
Paul writes: “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.” Ephesians 5:22-24
So when the apostle writes “all things” you think he means some things. I will grant that the principle that Peter’s words “But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.” Acts 5:29 supersede the command for wive’s submission. So if the husband is not demanding his wife to sin then she ought to submit. Your other objection was in a circumstance of abuse. This circumstance is illuminated in 1Peter beginning in 1Pe 2:13 and culminating 1 Pe 3:6. Peter in his epistle is describing the grief of various trial that a Christian might face.
In chapter 2 it tells the faithful to be subject to earthly authorities. Then he tells those who are slaves to be subject to their masters, even the cruel unjust ones. He especially values a beating that is not deserved. “For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God.” 1 Peter 2:20 .
Peter points out that in this suffering a slave is imitating Christ. “For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.” 1 Peter 2:21 . Now hold on to your hat, because after describing Christ’s unjust suffering chapter 3 opens with these words: “Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct.” 1 Peter 3:1-2
Observe the opening word “likewise”. Like what? Like Christ and like the slave. Both suffered unjustly and are commended for their willingness to remain subject to authority.
Scripture teaches wives to obey, submit, be subject to their own husbands with fear and reverence in all things that do not violate the law of God. Does that include unjust suffering, yes it does. That infer that masters are to unjustly beat their slaves or husbands are to unjustly cause their wives to suffer? Of course not. Are there other principles that might have application? Yes of course.
For instance a wife does not need to submit to a beating that would likely take her life. The principal of the preservation of life has priority. I’m sure we could dream up other fanciful exceptions, but the exception does not invalidate the rule. Obey and submit is to be the wife’s standard operation and only the truly exceptional and rare instance violating that imperative.
Got to run … more to come.
Sir, I appreciate your arguement, but I would tell you that I do not appreciate you calling my opinions errant since both mine and your opinions are based off of an INTERPRETATION of Scripture, not a differing scriptural verse. If I were a Muslim or Atheist, this statement would be valid, but as I am a fellow believer, I would like to tell you that this is innapropriate. Perhaps you have never had your beliefs challenged. I do not do so out of a lack of Biblical knowledge, I do so because I believe you are misinterpreting Scripture, and I stand by that.
Now, I only have one question- you make it seem as if the wives are not allowed to say no to sex, which does fall into the category of physical abuse. Do you stand by that, or was I misreading your work?
I apologize if I have offended you in any way.
Elisha: “I’ve been cornered and have no argument, so I will now appeal to being a fellow Christian!!! which will make my arguing with you above all reproach. Something something, Christ’s love.”
Mic drop. Rinse and repeat as necessary.
You’re just a kid, which isn’t something anyone here is going to rake you over the coals for, except when you’re trying to act like you know more about Biblical marriage than grown men who were/are married. So, being young, let me set you up with a SIMPLE logic puzzle. Your argument now :eye roll: is that you have a difference of interpretation. Fine. My question to you is this: is it possible to interpret something incorrectly? Of course you know the answer to that one. So why would you use that as your argument? If it’s possible we have the wrong interpretation, it’s possible you do too. Or we’re both correct and there’s no point arguing. So stop saying it’s your “interpretation”. Give us a concrete argument. BGR and Jonadab have been kind enough to quote you scripture. Do us the same. Do as I told you earlier and stop trying to lawyer your way out of God’s word. It will make your life a lot easier.
Elisha you responded to my assertion that biblical ethics are not subject to the calendar with this retort Do you allow your children to speak at the dinner table? This wasn’t allowed 200 years ago. Do you move in church? This wasn’t allowed either.. You illustrated the point beautifully. By appealing to cultural norms that are ever changing you show the stark contrast to that which does not change. While it might be gracious to categorize your examples as applications to the law, it proves that applications should not be conflated with the principle of the law. Applications are applied by legitimate authorities within the boundaries of proper jurisdiction. One in authority may have slightly different application then another, those applications may be adjusted over time or adjusted by circumstance and person. John Frame aptly described this process as “applying God’s Word to people in circumstances”. The Word portion is called normative ethics. The circumstances are what makes up situational ethics and persons is what Frame calls existential ethics. All three ethical perspectives exist in tandem, the Christian cannot divorce one from the other two. So the Word does not change, but situations are fluid and individuals are considered according to who they are, their history, position and character.
So having put this canard behind us let us press on to expositing the Word not conflating our own opinion with scripture.
Sorry Elisha, but regurgitating old-and-proven-stupid feminist talking points is no substitute for actually quoting the Bible.
As Eduardo pointed out before I got here, you also used the SAME exact defense move as any other “feminists Christian” uses when she is cornered.
Feminist-Christian = Oxymoron.
Elisha you wrote if a husband excises his authority too much, he will find his relationship with his wife falling apart. The husband is not the Lord over the wife, there is only one Lord in that relationship and He died for us.
You seem to be saying that too much authority will provoke disunity. I contend that it is not too much authority but misapplied authority and unaffirmed authority. The world says “happy wife -happy life”. This philosophy makes the fear of the wife and provoking her displeasure as the principle to unity in marriage. It is upside down backwards and twisted. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, not the wife. Rollo’s frame is incorrect because it places a male’s pleasure above pleasing God. The same is true with happy wife or the neglect of God-given authority in order to not upset the wife who is, frankly struggling with her submission and trust in God’s ordering of her life.
As to “the husband is not lord over his wife I might simply point you to Peter pointing to Sarah: “as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.”
1 Peter 3:6 So there are sons of Abraham by faith and daughters of Sarah. The latter are commended for calling their husband “lord”.
Again the Word separates bone from marrow; opinion from God’s truth.
Obviously, I am surrounded by people who do not want to learn, nor will they change. Guys, this isn’t a Christ-like way of debating and I am ashamed to see these words coming out of fellow brother’s mouths. Yes, I am young. Shame on you for ganging up on a teenager and treating me as if I were 10. Know this- I shared this debate with my entire school in an announcement, and this Christian school, staff and children alike, UNANIMOUSLY stated you are misinterpreting Scripture. You point to my age? Look at the numbers.
You will ignore me. You will scoff at me and write scathing remarks. Brothers, I repeat- this is not Christ-like. And yet, in me saying this, you will state that I am appealing as being a fellow Christian. Again I say: shame on you.
You won’t read it, but I would like to offer the REAL interpretation of Scripture by several of the greatest Biblical scholars this earth has ever seen. It can be downloaded for free from this link. https://www.crossway.org/articles/free-ebook-this-momentary-marriage-by-john-piper/
You won’t read it, but I will pray for all of you to realize how oppressive your opinions are, and I would be interested to hear your wives’ opinions of this. Certainly, they will not agree with you. You need to be grounded in the Word, as I have been. My age matters not, as I have grown up around three of Uganda’s greatest Bible scholars and have been mentored by them personally. Again, I say: I will keep you in my prayers.
Elisha,
Yes I stand by my teaching found all over this blog that God’s rule is women are not allow to say no to sex with their husbands and that rule is based upon Ephesians 5:24 that “as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing“. “Every thing” includes sex. God’s exception to his rule that a wife must submit to her husband in everything is Acts 5:29 and that means only if he asks her do something sinful can she refuse. Him asking to her have sex with him when she is not in the mood is not him asking her to engage in sin. Her refusing to not have sex with him when she is not in the mood IS her engaging in sin.
Now that is what the Bible says from the woman’s perspective. Now let’s turn to the man’ perspective on when he may engage in sexual relations with his wife.
God’s rule for men regarding when they may engage in sex with their wives is found below:
The English word “satisfy” found in Proverbs 5:19 is a translation of the Hebrew “Ravah” which means “to be satiated or saturated, have or drink one’s fill,to take one’s fill, to be drunk, be intoxicated, to drench, water abundantly, saturate”. God’s rule is that men are to take their fill of their wives “at all times”. That means any time they are sexually thirsty. they are to take their fill from their wife’s body. Now like many commands God gives in the Bible there is an exception to this command.
And that exception is found below:
God commands men to take care of and protect their wife’s body as they do their own. So that means if their wife is ill or perhaps has just had a child or had surgery, in other words having sex with her at that time would risk her health, then the should deny their need for sex for her greater health need at that time.
But other than having sex with his wife when it would risk her health, a man not only has the right to have sex with his wife “at all times”, but he is actually commanded by God to do so.
You said a man is engaging in physical abuse if he will not let his wife refuse his sexual initiation. Please supply us with Scripture to support that definition of physical of abuse.
Also, to Rick-O-Shay: I find it amusing that you step into an argument, only to taunt in an un-Christlike way. You give no evidence from Scripture and yet call for me to give mine, which I have already done. I will not insult you back, as that would be stepping down onto your level. If you can’t debate like an adult, don’t debate at all. I apologize if I have hurt anybody, and I will not be addressing you again.
Sir, I cannot tell you how deeply you grieve me with your misinterpretation of Scripture. How do you know that everything means sex? Where does Paul say this? Where does the Bible say that not indulging in sex would be a sin? And, the Biblical defenition of abuse doesn’t matter within this context, it’s the legal definition that does- a woman being made to have sex without her consent is legally called RAPE. Interesting that you are legally raping your wife.
Your verse in Proverbs means “let her satisfy you at all times of SEX”, not whenever the husband wants a high.
To nurture your flesh also means to sometimes deny it, as the Bible said (I do not need to quote Scripture, you know the verse). This would enclude denying it from sex.
I hope you will talk to a pastor about this.
Elisha,
I agree with you that is possible for a young man, even a child, to grasp a spiritual truth that adults much older than him do not grasp. The Apostle Paul tells Timothy, a young pastor probably in his early 20s at best, “Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity” (1 Timothy 4:12). But the Apostle Paul also says that those who teach the Word(example Pastors) should not be a “novice” (Timothy 3:) but rather “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).
When I was your age I might have thought many things you do because of the culture I was raised in. But as I grew in the Lord I had to separate my cultural beliefs from what God’s Word says. While I respect John Piper as a teacher of the Bible, he too has his lenses of the Scriptures skewed by the culture. I pray that God will remove his cultural blinders on some of these issues.
I believe it is good for us to have our views challenged. Mine have been challenged for many years. You are not the first and you certainly will not be the last.
So yes in once sense you are right that age matters not. God’s truth could be spoken by a young man, a teenage man, or an old man. If my teenage son were in a room of older people who think as you do – he could give the truth of God’s Word from the passages I have given you and it would be just as true coming from his lips. And those older people who think as you do and reject the clear teachings of God’s Word would be just as wrong. So yes you are right, it is possible for a young person to rightly interpret and apply God’s Word and an older person to misinterpret or misapply it. Amen and Amen.
The fact that your Christian school teachers unanimously agreed that we are misinterpretating the Bible does not prove that we are. But it what it does prove is my assertion that the modern Christian church (including Christian schools) have been infested by feminism. It surrounds us and we are bathed in it from the moment we are born. But only by recognizing this truth and coming to the conclusion that all your beliefs must start with the Bible, not the culture, will you come to accept the truth of God’s Word.
I pray brother, that one day you will take off your cultural blinders and see these truths.
I agree with you on every statement except two- my cultural blinders and me rejecting “clear” truths. Firstly- I have grown up between the USA and Africa. I am not blinded by either culture. In fact, I would go so far as to say that you, the one that has “seperated” himself from culture, has more cultural blinders than me, the one that spends little time in the United States.
Second- you say they are clear truths and yet I see you interpreting Scripture. Regardless of whether I am wrong or not, which I very well may be, this Scripture is not “clear” but requires an interpretation. I would challenge you to remember that.
Finally, I would say one more thing- if your wife were to say no to you on a night you wanted to have sex, and you told her that it was within your right to FORCE her to, you are literally raping her. I apologize for the harsh term but it’s the truth.
I mean no offense and apologize in advance, but I don’t think you will have anywhere near a healthy relationship with your wife if you are raping her when you feel like it. I’m sure you will defend your marriage and say you are find, but it is impossible for you to rape your wife on a common basis, and yet have a healthy relationship with your wife.
Forgive me if I have offended you, I only speak what I believe.
Also, I’d like to point to your first arguement- your own debate does not hold water against itself. Ephesians 5 says to “die to your wife” as you died to the church. Your comparison of the husband and Christ/the church goes against itself here.
I would say that your definition of sex is askewed- you say sex is for your own, selfish gain. The Bible says, yet again in Ephesians 5, that sex is a gift for both to enjoy, something to strengthen the marriage and bring the two together.
Elisha,
Do you not see your own words? “How do you know that everything means sex”? Everything means everything sir. That is basic grammar in any language. I gave you the exception to the everything rule from Acts.
“Where does the Bible say that not indulging in sex would be a sin?” I submit to you that if a man does not engage in sex with his wife whenever he is sexually thirsty, he is in fact violating God’s command for him to “satisfy thee at all times” with his wife’s body and further more he is subjecting himself to sexual temptation by not partaking of the well that his wife according to 1 Corinthians 7:5.
You say you were grieved by my quotations and exposition of the Scripture showing that a woman cannot say no to sex and a husband may partake of his wife’s body even when she was not in the mood. Well it grieves me to hear a brother in Christ ever stating “the Biblical defenition of abuse doesn’t matter” in ANY context. There is NO context in which the Biblical definition of a morality does not matter. No context ever sir. And God’s definition of morality trumps man’s definition and God law trumps man’s law.
Man’s law says a man may not satisfy himself at all times from his wife’s body, but God’s law say he may and should. And no sir – Proverbs 5:18 does not mean “let her satisfy you at all times of SEX” – you are reading that into the passage. It does not say, “hey whenever your wife feels like having sex, then when she is letting you have sex with her be content with whatever sex she is giving you”. No sir – that does injustice to the Hebrew language which has the idea of a man taking his fill of his wife’s body when ever he is thirsty for it. That is the literal meaning of the text sir.
I agree that God sometimes wants a husband to deny his need for sex, for his wife’s greater health need(i.e. she just had surgery or a baby). I already stated that. However the Greek word behind nurture, and even the English nurture itself, never means to deny. It means to “feed” or provide for.
Again I truly pray you will have your cultural blinders removed to see the Scriptures that stand right before your eyes.
*sigh*
I only have one more thing left to say- John Piper is so anti-feminist it’s amazing. Please listen to him. He doesn’t have your so-called “cultural binders”, which I do not either, having grown up in Africa.
*sigh*
The Bible is so anti-feminist it’s amazing. Take your wordly view and [cursing removed – warning from moderator (aka BGR) please do not curse in comments on this blog]. You have worn out your welcome with your dishonesty and bastardization of scripture. Come back to us in a few years when you have studied and reflected on what the Word has said, not your “woke” missionaries.
Elisha,
Regarding your statement:
Do you not see how much you are reading into the text of the Bible? Nothing in Ephesians 5 commands a man to “die to your wife” nor does it even say Christ “died to the church”. Christ died FOR the Church, not TO the Church. And the Scriptures tell us why he “gave himself up” for the Church:
We are called by the Scriptures as husbands to love our wives AS Christ loved his church. To love our wives in a way that mimics his love and to love her for the reasons he loves his church. We are to give ourselves up or even be willing to die, not for our wife’s happiness and comfort, but rather to sanctify her. That is the very reading of the text sir. I am not reading one word into the text as you are doing all over the place.
No where in all the Bible does it say a man’s desire for sex with his wife, or wife’s desire for sex with her husband is selfish. Once again you are reading something into the Bible that can be found nowhere. It is not selfish for a man to partake of the well of sexual pleasure that God has given him in the form of his wife. It is your definition of selfishness , not my definition of sex that is skewed. Below is the Biblical definition of selfishness:
The key word in the passage above is “also”. It is not selfishness for a man to look on his own things (take care of his own needs), but rather it is selfishness for a man to never consider the needs others.
Elisha,
John Piper thinks he is anti-feminist as you do and I agree with him where he correctly follows the Scriptures in regard to male headship. However he stops very short of the complete picture of Biblical gender roles as do you.
BGR, of her many problems, one of them is that like ALL of feminism, she wants the “pros” of God’s Word, but none of the “cons”. She wants the perks that the scriptures provide her, but NOT the responsibilities.
Dear Elisha, I was making an observation. I was NOT taunting you. The fact that you assume the latter speaks ill of you, not me.
@Elisha. I’m tempted to let this die, but I have decided to finish my responses to your earlier posting. There has been a good deal of action on this thread since then, but I think that we should complete the earlier post before jumping around.
You wrote “ …and if the wife corrects him or gently reprooves him of this, that is a completely needed practice. .
Your statement contradicts. “Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct.” 1 Peter 3:1-2 . If a Christian wife thinks she needs to correct and reprove her husband the biblical prescription is not to, but to keep her words to herself as she becomes an even better example of submission. Her example when observed by her husband is the biblical means through which the Holy Spirit brings her husband to repentance. It is tough for the flesh to humble itself this way, it is not for the weak, only strong faith in a wife will give her the needed strength to keep quite and behave toward her husband with respect and purity. Her example is Christ who humbled himself and became incarnate and suffered for sins He did not commit.
Elisha, this cannot be dismissed lightly, is not my interpretation, it is the plain meaning of scripture. If you desire to discuss principles of exegesis and hermeneutical methods I will participate, but simply avoiding sound arguments with the “that’s just your interpretation” defense is beneath the man of God. It makes the univocal meaning of scripture untenable. God is not the author of confusion, we should not confuse what is clearly laid down in scripture or the consequence of a good and necessary deduction with opinionated platitudes.
Elisha, as I continue to read through your more recent comments I am overwhelmed by the number of misguided statements and the scope of the work required to address them all. I do not have that margin in my life at this time, so I will leave you with this.
The man of God approaches the scripture with humility asking himself where am I in error that I might change my thinking and repent. That is the ministry of BGR regarding biblical gender roles and their necessary consequences in marriage.
The scripture forms our thinking and reforms what we thought we once knew. The spiral effect is that the more we learn, the more we Can learn and also the more we unlearn that is contrary or beside the scriptures. The formation of biblical thoughts provide us the structure for even more learning. It is like learning algebra prepares us to learn calculus which prepares us to learn physics and differential equations. But if we resist we are stuck in pre-algebra. Scripture transforms our thoughts over time, but only when we are humble enough to let scripture speak and not impose our presumptions upon it.
I do not know you, but it seems humility would not be a word I would use to describe your interaction thus far. The kingdom of Christ would be better served by humility than youthful brashness. I hope you take this admonition to heart so that your boldness may be accompanied with knowledge, your love with obedience and your apologetic with truth.
Elisha, your youthful zeal is quite evident. However, your responses quickly turned to defensive, emotional hullabaloo. I hope this exchange teach you some valuable lessons.
I can say from experience that you would have to look very hard to find a more gracious and respectful blogger than BGR. I have seen him respond to numerous less than cordial attacks in a very kind, patient, and yes, Christlike manner. Likewise, Jonadab speaks with humility, grace, and Christlikeness. These men are students of the Scriptures and “think Biblically.” I fail to see how they have not been Christlike in this discourse, unless your definition of Christlike is “agree with me.” Perhaps you should expand your definition of Christlike to include exposing erroneous teaching because He spent much of His ministry doing that very thing.
I encourage you to look again at what they are saying and do not simply dismiss it because it doesn’t agree with what you have been taught or read. You are now at the age where you must begin to discern for yourself what is truth and what is not.
Sadly, much of what you (and everyone else) have been taught as biblical truth is actually the opinion of men. Much preaching, teaching, and writing departs from spiritual meaning and detours into fleshly interpretation and speculation. Part of growing up is learning to discern where biblical truth ends and human (mis)understanding begins.
Engaging in dialogue is an important part of that process. How you respond in such dialogue will determine the benefit you receive from it. If you participate with an arrogant, unteachable spirit, you will receive little benefit. If you participate humbly with openness to learn, you will benefit much more.
BGR,
I will apologize for the language, but not the tone. Elisha never intended to come here and have a reasoned discussion. Unfortunately, his style of discourse is ubiquitous, especially amongst his age group, to the point that even Christianity is morally relative (hence his emphasis on “interpretation” even when shown to be in the wrong). This kid doesn’t need to be argued with, he needs to be disciplined, and not because of his arguments, but because of his behavior. I won’t begin to assign blame, not knowing his upbringing and environment, but someone has failed him horribly.
I hope we either see a more mature Elisha or we never see him again. I would hate to have to fend off three or four Elishas a week as this blog gains more of a following.
@Caroline. “…. why did God only create Eve for Adam?”
“”For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?””
Romans 11:34
Elisha,
You are not correct in everything. Every single person believes something, maybe many somethings, that is incorrect. Or does there exist someone who is completely right in all that they believe? If so, who is that man/woman? Do there exist two people who believe the exact same on every existing topic? I do not believe so. I believe wholeheartedly that everyone is wrong in something, and does not know it. For if we knew that a belief we hold is wrong, wouldn’t we choose to believe the truth instead?
In every disagreement you have with someone else, consider the possibility that you are the one who is incorrect. If you are the one who is incorrect, wouldn’t you want to learn what is correct? So then listen to the other person, and hear what they say. Be like the Bereans and assess it, study it, see whether what they say is true, or if you are, in fact, correct in the disagreement.
Then have grace for the other person. If you are wrong in something, and do not know it, and would choose to believe the truth if you knew what it was, is it not reasonable to say the same for the person who is arguing against you? Are they not seeking truth as well?
You are young, and I am not much older. But have you noticed the changes in your beliefs over time, like I have in mine? It is reasonable to assume that our future selves will have slightly, perhaps even radically, different views or beliefs than what we hold now. Passion for what you believe is good, but do not let it blind you to the fact that our understanding of truth changes as we grow older and learn more.
I will not argue on this specific subject with you. I don’t really know much about it, and am still learning and testing things. I don’t have the knowledge that these other people have. But I encourage you to listen to what they have to say, and consider it. You don’t have to accept it.
Remember, though, that truth isn’t always the thing that is most commonly believed. You may be surrounded by people who believe something, and it may be false. Should a young man reject Christianity because those around him are Muslim? For myself, I believe several things very differently from my own family. I do not speed, though they believe going 5 or 10 over speed limit is acceptable and not illegal. I do not stream or download pirated content, yet they believe it is okay to do so. I believe in the hierarchy of authority in marriage, and their reactions range from guarded agreement to thinking I’m crazy, or even that my beliefs are dangerous. I do not share all of my disagreements with them, because I do not know how they would treat me.
So do not be afraid to consider something that is opposed to the beliefs of those around you. Search for truth, and weigh it out based on its own qualities, not on who else believes it. We only have one source to fully trust: the Bible. Anything else is fallible, including the majority, authorities, and ourselves.
BGR is wrong in some things. John Piper is wrong in some things. Your family is wrong in some things. You and I are wrong in some things. The Bible is not wrong in anything. Make the Bible your source for truth, not other people.
And let us have grace for each other, knowing these things.
Eduardo, sorry if this is considered off topic, but are you certain Elisha wasn’t female?
Click on his photo. His blog is called “Africa Boy”, and he looks like a teenage boy. Call me old fashioned, but I assume genders.
Yea ive skimmed through his blog, which is just his opinion on things he finds Christian. I’ve never met a male “Elisha” but there’s always a first time for everything. I don’t wanna link anything to his site from here since he could check clicks and it’ll link to the comments on this page, and then this whole bible fighting ****show starts up again.
Ah, yes, I should have clicked the avatar to get a closer look. Sorry.